The point is not that he lost. Obviously any Republican running in Obama's state against an entrenched incumbent Senator when Obama is on the top of the ticket for President is going to have a difficult time.
The point is that Sauerberg was such a pathetic candidate that he wasn't even a blip on the radar screen and Durbin steamrollered him and cruised and to re-election. A real candidate could have at least forced the Dems to spend some money in this race and gone through the motions of an actual campaign.
Look at it this way: McCain/Palin was on the SAME ballot as Sauerberg, running statewide in the SAME election year, against Illinois' other, MORE popular, Senator. McCain won half the counties in Illinois (around 50 or so), several congressional districts, and 40% of the vote. Sauerberg won a pathetic 3 out of 102 counties, 0 congressional districts, and around 29% of the vote. Clearly, a bunch of Illinoisans who voted for McCain/Palin did NOT vote for Sauerberg (for example, I'm one of them). And how about just six years ago in 2002, when Durbin was also an incumbent Senator and wasn't tainted by the backlash from comparing U.S. troops to NAZIs yet? In that election year, the Republican candidate won about 26 counties, several congressional districts, and 38% of the popular vote on a shoestring campaign.
So while the Illinois GOP always knew Sauerberg would fail, nobody expected him to fail quite so spectacularly. Sauerberg's statement on election night that he "came up short" is the understatement of the year. Campaigns like his practically make it seem like Durbin is running unopposed.
So did I expect a Republican victory for U.S. Senator from Illinois this year? No. Did I expect Republicans to put up a qualified candidate and at least put up a respectable fight and work to weaken Durbin? Yes, but they utterly failed to do so.
RINOs like Sauerberg should not be slated for any future office. The Illinois GOP needs to stop running clueless millionaires with no platform and get some principled conservatives with proven electability.
I agree with Bill’s comments, about Sauerberg. Right after the primary, all Illinois voters should have known that Sauerberg would lose, because he was supported by IL GOP leaders, since the party leaders have supported many losers. Before the 2002 U.S. Senate primary, many party leaders supported St. Rep. Durkin. He won the primary, and, in the general election, he won 38%. In 2004, when Jack Ryan quit the U.S. Senate race, the IL GOP State Central Committee appointed Alan Keyes, to be the nominee. In the general election, he won 27%. Before the 2006 governor primary, many party leaders endorsed then-Treasurer Topinka. She won the primary, but, in the general election, she won 38%. Last Dec., as soon as Chairman McKenna and the IL GOP State Central Committee endorsed Sauerberg, all IL republican primary voters should have known that they should vote for a different candidate.
I did. Sauerberg's vote % probably matched or exceeded the % of people who even knew who he was. When a nobody runs a non-race against a popular incumbent in a bad year for his party, that's what you get. I didn't expect Berry to do as well as he did but I expected Durbin to exceed his %. He got fewer actual votes though I believe because so many fools vote President only.
Koppie should have ran for the GOP nomination.